The example you gave isn't really stupid, but it doesn't help you. For what question does it answer? It's as much of a statement as my statement: "God created [this]". And how is it not supported by any other (true) statements? You must've not read the Bible. We start from the Bible and start making connections. And i'll tell you, we've made a lot of connections.


There is nothing new in the world. What has happened has happened, and will happen again. So, it's not so much their experience, it is our own as well, for we've gone through the very same things. Our experience is also their experience.

Also, just 'cause there are similarities, it does not mean that they're an evolved form of another species—that is just conjecture.

This is pretty silly, so I'll try to respond to the points that make sense.

That Catholics aren't Christians would be news to them, and using the "no true Scotsman" argument, a logical fallacy maintaining that they aren't true Christians unless they believe x, y and z is unfair. Saying things like "A real Christian believes in the whole Bible." is really a loaded, self serving interpretation, and reading your posts on this boards you seem thoughtful enough, so the reasons why Catholics are, in fact, Christians (why is this even disputed?) are there and you should already be able to figure them out yourself. But if you want, I'll gladly elaborate on why you can't wantonly exclude vast swaths of the religious community from the very beliefs they claim to practice.


There are probably a whole lot more Christian congregations that don't participate. But I was never arguing against that. You wanted to know what Christians exist who could believe in evolution. There is obviously a sizable group, regardless of whether you think they are "true" enough or whether you think such a group has to be in the majority before it can be considered notable. No one could suggest, for example, that racial groups aren't sufficiently "considerable" if they are merely minority populations, and get away with it. Why is this logic any more sensible in the present context? You wanted to know who these people are who think Christianity can agree with mainstream science, I'm representing them.


This is frustrating. Here is a better source. It's a report based on a survey by a professional and respected polling firm, Rasmussen Reports. Broken down, just 4% of evangelics think the bible is not literally true. But 30% of protestants and 42% of Catholics don't believe the bible is literally true, such groups exist in significant numbers exactly like I was saying. Meaning all of this doubt and disagreement was a waste of time and beside the point.

I sympathize with and understand what you are saying, just like I did from the beginning. There exist Christians who do take the bible literally. But I would have hoped it was fundamentally self evident that my question applied exclusively to those who it was relevant to, not to those who it isn't relevant to.

This post has been edited by glenstein: Feb 18 2007, 06:35 PM

There are of course a lot of connections in the Bible, but none is based on a fact that can be proven (referring of course to the creation theory). You have to start from one true statement and then using (true) connections get to what you want. So connections without a basic truth means nothing... I have to admit I haven't read the Bible... Maybe someday I will so I can better understand the other side of the problem...

In part you are right... History does repeat itself, but that doesn't mean that there isn't anything new in the world. I do realize that the evolution theory is never going to be totally proven because it's simply too massive to prove. We do not see air, but we know it is there; same thing with the evolution theory. As I have said in other posts religion is good as long as it has it's measure. Too much and we end up in the Dark Ages... Faith and hope are the basic needs of mankind. Above all MUST be reason...

This post has been edited by adriantc: Feb 17 2007, 07:37 PM

In response to a large number of posts in this topic:

To me it seems as christians make up things as they go. For example, my friend who is in a christian school has long hair and is growing it out. The teachers are going to make him cut it because,"It's the way Jesus wanted it." Yes, I am not making this up that is what they said. Not only did Jesus have long hair, there is NOTHING in the Bible that says boys can't have long hair when they attend a christian school. Another example is that my friend's mom (this is another friend) told him he had to go to church, so before we left this is what she said,"Oscar (me), when was that last time you had communion?" My response was,"Not for months." (I am an Athiest, but i never dare say that to his mom!) She goes,"OK, well don't have communion then, because we believe (we as in Christian) believe you need to regulary take it to receive it." My friend said,"Mom, that is so stupid. Nothing in the Bible says that." And an argument started, but that was just to state my point. There are many times incidents like this have come up.

How does this tie into your topic? Well, i think that there is no reason for what you are saying. I think Christians WANT to believe in ID. If they really took an open mind into Evolution they would see how, although MAY not be true although most likely is and i certainly believe it, much more of a chance that, that could happen over the idea someone just went ""BAM!" and "POOF!" the world was here. Yes, Darwin said that about how its imagination, but could you honestly imagine him saying that kind of thing then?! Even now, by some, it's hated and the people who believe this are put aside as sinners and will go to hell. Think about years ago when you could get hanged for that. I couldn't and I think anyone with a right mind would also say that.

@Boozker- I once had someone tell me that public nudity should stay illegal because it went against his religion (Christianity), and after I pointed out several verses from both Old and New Testaments which involved public nudity being a-OK, and finding not a single one that condemned it, he still insisted. Some people just like to feel that all their personal opinions are supported by their "big guy in the sky", because in their eyes, that makes them infallible. Lots of times they'll "get away" with just making stuff up as they go, because come on, the Bible is so huge and contradictory that other people on the street can't rule it out unless they have the whole thing memorized.

I agree. There is a very strong will to stick with an argument, not for the facts, but, simply "because". Because you had invested in it and if you lose you look bad, or a part of you, a part of the way you thought the world worked is gone. More than any specific argument or belief, religious or not, is this fascinating and destructive tendency on self-insistence. I've seen it on this message board, and really it's shameful and sad.

I've heard from people serving on jury duty that they would get near a unanimous decision on an obvious case, and there would be one person insisting against towering mountains of fact and preventing the jury from coming to a conclusion, getting a hung jury on a case where there was no reason on earth for it to occur. More than any belief itself about religion, politics, etc. is the self investment one puts in it, where they have to maintain come hell or high water some substance of an argument. I would be willing to bet that all kinds of positions and beliefs held by people are held on account of some baser, more immediate appeal than that they carry factual weight, and so expending paragraphs in textbooks and hours of time in congress on debates is really beating around the bush, because the bush isn't the argument itself. It's about personal dignity, integrity, or something like that which gets crushed or destroyed if relinquished.

So I think most of the time, if you disagree with someone who is obviously wrong, you could engage them forcefully but in all likelyhood, despite having every fact in the world on your side, you could end up reinforcing the belief that you are trying to dispute. Better instead to address their willingness to commit to a certain belief. De-emphasize any urge to lift some bad idea (intelligent design, for example) to such a high altar that they start defining the world with it. If it becomes sacred to them it's too late, hence the fierceness of religion.

There is a great Bertrand Russel quote on this:



So in the grander scheme, combating that instinct is more important than any specific argument.

This post has been edited by glenstein: Feb 19 2007, 04:01 AM